The "Critics" or Bernsteinists on the agrarian question, in defending small-scale production, appeal particularly often to the following circumstance. Small farmers keep incomparably more cattle per unit of land area than large farmers. Consequently—they argue—small farmers fertilize the soil better. Their farming stands higher from a technical standpoint, since manure plays a decisive role in modern agriculture, and manure obtained from livestock kept on the farm outweighs many times over all artificial fertilizers whatsoever.

Ed. David in his book "Socialism and Agriculture" attributes decisive significance to this argument (pp. 326, 526, 527 of the Russian translation). He writes in italics: "manure is the soul of agriculture" (p. 308) and makes this truth the principal foundation of his defense of small-scale farming. He cites German statistics, which show that in small farms much more cattle is kept per unit of area than in large ones. David is convinced that these data definitively settle the question of the advantages of large-scale and small-scale production in agriculture in his favor.

Let us examine this theory and the manure-soul of agriculture more closely.

The principal argument of David and his numerous supporters among bourgeois economists is statistical in nature. The quantity of cattle (per unit of area) in farms of various sizes is compared. In doing so, it is tacitly assumed that homogeneous quantities are being compared—that is, that an equal quantity of cattle of one definite type represents the same, so to speak, agricultural value in both large and small farms. It is assumed that equal quantities of cattle yield equal quantities of manure, that cattle are distinguished by more or less similar qualities in large and small farms, and so forth.

It is evident that the entire demonstrative value of the argument under examination depends wholly on the correctness of this ordinary tacit assumption. Is this proposition correct? If we move from bare and crude blanket statistics to an analysis of the socio-economic conditions of small and large-scale agricultural production as a whole, we shall see immediately that precisely what is supposed to be proven is taken as proven by this proposition. Marxism asserts that in small-scale production the conditions for keeping cattle (as well as, as we have seen, the conditions for caring for the land and maintaining the working peasant) are worse than these conditions in large-scale farming. Bourgeois political economy, and the Bernsteinists after it, assert the opposite: by virtue of the diligence of the small farmer, the conditions for keeping cattle are much better in small-scale farming than in large-scale farming. To find statistical data that shed light on this question, one needs quite different statistics from those with which David operates. One needs statistical investigation not about the quantity of cattle in farms of different sizes, but about its quality. In German economic literature there is such an investigation, perhaps even more than one. And it is highly characteristic that David, who filled his book with an abyss of irrelevant citations from all manner of agronomic works, completely passed over in silence the attempts existing in the literature to reveal the internal conditions of small-scale and large-scale farming on the basis of detailed investigations. We shall acquaint the reader with one of these works unjustly ignored by David.

The well-known German writer on questions of agriculture, Drexler, published the results of one monographic "agricultural statistical investigation," concerning which he justly expressed himself to the effect that "in terms of accuracy of results it hardly has its equal." In the province of Hannover, 25 settlements (22 villages and three landowner estates) were investigated, and for each farm separately data were collected not only about the quantity of land and the quantity of cattle, but also about the quality of cattle. To determine the quality of cattle, an exceptionally precise method was employed: the live weight of each animal was established in kilograms "on the basis of the most accurate possible assessment of individual animals—assessments conducted by knowledgeable persons." Data were obtained about the live weight of each type of animal in farms of various sizes. Moreover, the investigation was repeated: the first time in 1875, the second in 1884. The data were published by Drexler in raw form, for each of the three estates and for three groups of villages, with peasant farms in the villages divided into seven groups according to land quantity (over 50 hectares, 25-50, 12.5-25, 7.5-12.5, 2.5-7.5, 1.25-2.5, and up to 1.25 hectares). If one takes into account that Drexler's data relate to 11 different types of cattle, then it becomes clear to the reader how complex all these tables are. To obtain summarized data permitting one to survey the general and fundamental conclusions, we shall divide all farms into five main groups: a) large estates; b) peasant farms having over 25 ha (hectares) of land; c) from 7.5 to 25 ha; d) 2.5-7.5 ha; and e) less than 2.5 ha. The number of farms in these groups and the quantity of land they possessed in 1875 and 1884 was as follows:

[TABLE DATA REFERENCED BUT NOT PROVIDED IN SOURCE]

To clarify these figures, let us dwell first of all on the economic type of farms of various sizes. Drexler considers that all farms with 7½ or more hectares of land do not manage without hired labor. There results (in 1875) 325 peasant farms that hire workers. All farms having up to 2½ ha must hire themselves out as workers. Of farms having from 2.5 to 7.5 ha (average size = 4.3 ha), half, according to Drexler's calculation, manage without hired labor, while the other half must hire out as wage laborers. Consequently, altogether among peasant farms there are 325 capitalist farms, 221 small "labor" farms (as our Populists would say), not hiring and not hired out, and 1670 semi-proletarian farms that hire themselves out.

Unfortunately, Drexler's grouping diverges from the grouping of general German statistics, which consider middle peasants to be those with 5-20 ha. But nonetheless it remains an undoubted fact that the majority of these middle peasants do not manage without hiring labor. The "middle" peasants in Germany are small capitalists. Peasants, on the other hand, who neither hire labor nor hire themselves out, constitute a negligible minority: 221 out of 2216, that is, one-tenth.

Thus, the farm groups we have taken, according to their economic type, are characterized as follows: a) large capitalist farms; b) middle capitalist ("grossbauers"); c) small capitalist; d) small-peasant; and e) semi-proletarian.

The total number of farms and the total quantity of land they possessed decreased from 1875 to 1884. This decrease falls chiefly on small farms: those having up to 2½ ha declined in number from 1449 to 1109, that is, by 340 farms, almost a quarter. On the contrary, the number of the largest farms (over 25 ha) increased from 54 to 61, and the quantity of land they held increased from 2638 ha to 3215 ha, that is, by 577 hectares. Consequently, the general improvement of farming and rise of culture in the given locality, which Drexler admires, means the concentration of agriculture in the hands of a decreasing number of owners. The "progress" drove almost 400 proprietors out of farming out of 2219 (by 1884, 1825 remained) and raised the average quantity of land per farm among those remaining from 4.2 hectares to 5. In one locality capitalism concentrates this branch of agriculture and drives a series of small proprietors into the proletariat. In another locality the growth of commercial agriculture creates a series of new small farms (for instance, dairy farming in suburban villages and in entire countries supplying products abroad, such as Denmark). In still other localities the fragmentation of middle farms increases the number of small ones. Blanket statistics obscure all these processes, the study of which requires detailed investigations.

The progress of agriculture in the described locality expressed itself especially in the improvement of cattle-raising. In this process the total number of head of cattle decreased. In 1875 there were 7208 head of cattle (converted to large cattle), in 1884—6993. For blanket statistics this decrease in the quantity of cattle would serve as a sign of decline in cattle-raising. In actuality the quality of cattle improved, so that if one takes not the number of head of cattle but the total "live weight," one obtains 2,556,872 kilograms in 1875 and 2,696,107 kg in 1884.

The capitalist progress of cattle-raising expresses itself not only, and sometimes not even primarily, in an increase in numbers, but in an improvement of quality, in the replacement of inferior cattle with better, in an increase in feed, and so forth.

In the largest farms the quantity of cattle decreased. In the smallest it increased, and increased all the faster, the smaller the farm. It might seem that this confirms the progress of small-scale production and the regression of large-scale production? That is, confirmation of David's theory?

But one need only turn to the data on the average weight of cattle, and the illusion vanishes.

* Different small livestock was converted to large cattle according to customary standards. For one year, for one of the 11 types of cattle, the number of head was determined approximately: data exist only about weight, not about the number of head.

The first conclusion from these data consists in the fact that the quality of cattle is better the larger the size of the farm. The difference in this respect between capitalist farms and small-peasant or semi-proletarian farms proves to be enormous. For example, in 1884 this difference between farms of the largest and smallest size exceeds one hundred percent: the average weight of an average head of cattle in large capitalist farms is 619 kilograms, while in semi-proletarian farms it is 301, that is, more than twice as small! One can judge, therefore, how superficially David and his like-minded colleagues reason when they assume the similarity of cattle quality in large and small farms.

Earlier we already pointed out that the conditions for keeping cattle in general are worse in small farms. Now we have factual confirmation of this. The data on the live weight of cattle give the most precise representation of all conditions for keeping cattle: feed, housing, labor, care—all of this is summed up, so to speak, in the results, which in Drexler's monograph received statistical expression. It turns out that all the "diligence" of the small peasant in caring for cattle—diligence celebrated by our Mr. V. V. and the German David—is unable even approximately to balance the advantages of large-scale production, which yields a product of twice as good quality. Capitalism condemns the small peasant to eternal toil, to the useless squandering of labor—for the most scrupulous care of cattle, combined with the lack of means, lack of feed, inferior quality of cattle, poor housing, and so forth, amounts to useless squandering of labor. Bourgeois political economy, in its assessment, places in the foreground not this ruin and oppression of the peasant by capitalism, but the "diligence" of the laborer (laboring for capital under the very worst conditions of exploitation).

The second conclusion from the presented data consists in the fact that the quality of cattle improved on average over the indicated decade, and improved also in all categories of farms. But as a result of this general improvement, the difference in conditions of cattle-raising in large and small farms became not less, but more significant. The general improvement did not equalize large and small farms, but deepened the gulf between them—for large-scale farming outpaces small-scale farming in this process of improvement. Here is a comparison of the average weight of an average head of cattle by groups in 1875 and 1884:

[TABLE DATA REFERENCED BUT NOT PROVIDED IN SOURCE]

The improvement is greatest in large capitalist farms, then in middle capitalist farms, quite insignificant in small-peasant farms and very slight in the others. Drexler, like the overwhelming majority of agronomists writing on questions of agricultural economics, noticed only the technical side of the matter. In his fifth conclusion from a comparison of 1875 and 1884 he says: "A very considerable progress in cattle-raising is observed: a decrease in the number of head of cattle and an improvement in quality; the average live weight of a head of cattle has increased significantly in each of the three groups of villages. This means that more or less everywhere (ziemlich allgemein) there has been a substantial improvement in the raising of cattle, in feed and in care of cattle."

The words we have emphasized—"more or less everywhere"—testify precisely to the author's disregard for the socio-economic side of the question; "more" refers to large farms, "less" to small ones. Drexler did not notice this because he paid attention only to data on groups of villages, not on groups of farms of different types.

Let us now turn to data on working cattle, which shed light on the conditions of farming in the strict sense of agricultural production. By the quantity of working cattle the farms we are considering are characterized by the following figures:

[TABLE DATA REFERENCED BUT NOT PROVIDED IN SOURCE]

Consequently, the semi-proletarian farms (up to 2.5 ha—in 1884 there were 1109 of such farms out of 1825) are in the vast majority completely deprived of working cattle. These farms cannot even be considered agricultural farms in the proper sense of the word. In any case, by the conditions of employing working cattle, one cannot compare with large farms those which in 93% or 84% do not employ working cattle at all. If, however, we compare in this respect large capitalist farms and small-peasant ones, we shall see that in the former (group a) 132 head of working cattle falls on 766 ha of land, while in the latter (group d) 632 head fall on 1774 ha (1884), that is, in the former 1 head of working cattle falls on approximately six hectares, in the latter on approximately three hectares. It is clear that small farms bear twice as great an expense for maintaining working cattle. Small-scale production means the fragmentation of the technical means of farming and the squandering of labor through this fragmentation.

Partly the cause of this fragmentation is that small farms must resort to the use of working cattle of inferior quality, namely to the use of cows as working cattle. In the total number of head of working cattle, the following percentage of cows was present:

[TABLE DATA REFERENCED BUT NOT PROVIDED IN SOURCE]

From this it is clearly evident that the use of cows for field work is increasing and that in semi-proletarian and small-peasant farms cows are the main working cattle. David is inclined to consider this progress—precisely in the same way as Drexler, who stands entirely from a bourgeois point of view, who writes in his conclusions: "A large number of small farms have switched to a more expedient use of cows as working cattle for them." This is "more expedient" for small farmers because it is cheaper. And it is cheaper because better working cattle is being replaced by inferior. The progress of small peasants that delights Drexlers and Davids is entirely equal to the progress of disappearing hand weavers, who switch to ever worse materials, to the refuse of factory production.

The average weight of working cows amounted in 1884 to 381 kilograms, whereas working horses—482 kg, and working oxen—553 kg. This last type of working cattle, the strongest, constituted in 1884 more than half of all working cattle on large capitalist farms; about one-quarter on middle and small capitalist farms; less than one-fifth on small-peasant farms and less than one-tenth on semi-proletarian farms. Consequently, the larger the farm, the higher the quality of working cattle. The average weight of an average head of working cattle is as follows:

[TABLE DATA REFERENCED BUT NOT PROVIDED IN SOURCE]

In general and on the whole, consequently, the working cattle deteriorated. In actuality, in large capitalist farms we see considerable improvement, in all the others—stagnation or deterioration. In respect to the quality of working cattle, the difference between large and small-scale production also increased from 1875 to 1884. The transition of small farms to the use of cows as working cattle is a general phenomenon in Germany. And our data prove with documentary precision that this transition means a worsening of the conditions of agricultural production, means an increase in the need of the peasantry.

To complete the survey of data from Drexler's monograph, let us present one more calculation of the quantity and weight of all cattle per unit of land area, that is, the calculation which David makes on the basis of German agricultural statistics in general:

[TABLE DATA REFERENCED BUT NOT PROVIDED IN SOURCE]

The data about the number of head of cattle per 1 hectare of land—these are the data to which David limits himself. In our example, as in German agriculture as a whole, these data show a decrease in the quantity of cattle per unit of area in large farms. In 1884, for example, in semi-proletarian farms there is exactly twice as much cattle per 1 ha as in large capitalist farms (1.18 as against 0.59). But we now know already that such a calculation compares incomparable things. The data on cattle weight show the actual relationship of farms: large-scale production proves to be better situated also in this respect, having a maximum of cattle by weight per unit of area, and consequently also a maximum of manure. Thus, David's conclusion that manure is, in general and on the whole, better supplied to small farms, is directly contrary to reality. And it must be kept in mind that our data, first, do not concern artificial fertilizers, the purchase of which is within the means of only well-to-do proprietors, and second, the comparison of cattle quantity by weight equates large and small animals, equates, for example, 45,625 kg—the weight of 68 head on a large farm—and 45,097 kg—the weight of 1786 goats on small farms (1884). In actuality the superiority of large farms in provision with manure fertilizer is considerably greater than our figures show.

Conclusion: by means of the phrase "manure is the soul of agriculture," David bypassed the socio-economic relations in livestock-raising specifically and presented the matter in a completely distorted manner.

Large-scale production in capitalist agriculture has an enormous superiority over small-scale production in respect to the quality of cattle in general, the quality of working cattle in particular, and the conditions for keeping cattle, improving it, and utilizing it for fertilization.